Scientific Opinion on the assessment of dairy cow welfare in small‐scale farming systems

Animal-based welfare indicators for dairy cows and their validity and practicality: a systematic review of the existing literature

Animal welfare is of increasing importance, with consumers preferring animal products made with ethical practices due to growing awareness. This shift highlights the need for reliable methods to evaluate welfare. This systematic review aims to assess the validity of current animal-based welfare indicators for dairy cows to aid farmers and agricultural professionals in evaluating and improving welfare amidst the lack of a clear legislative definition. The literature search spanned five databases: CAB Direct, PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar and Livivo, covering publications in English and German from 2011 to 2021. Specific search terms were employed, and abstracts were screened for relevance. Publications were categorized based on exclusion criteria, with a final verification process conducted by three independent scientists. Research highlights correlations between welfare measures, farm characteristics and innovative indicators like hair cortisol concentration. Farming systems and housing methods significantly affect welfare, with pasture-based systems generally resulting in reduced lameness and improved behavior. Proper housing design and management practices are important, as they influence indicators like lameness and cleanliness. Heart rate variability and heart rate monitoring provide insights into dairy cow stress levels during milking and other stressors, making them valuable for welfare assessment. Biomarker research emphasizes the need to balance productivity and health in breeding strategies, as high milk production alone does not indicate good welfare. Behavioral studies and the human-animal relationship are key to understanding welfare. Precision Livestock Farming offers real-time assessment capabilities, although validation is needed. Stress physiology is complex, and while cortisol measurement methods are promising, further research is necessary. Assessment tools like the Animal Needs Index and routine herd data analysis are valuable for identifying welfare concerns. Key findings highlight the WQ® protocol's effectiveness and versatility, the challenge of its time demands, and the DCF protocol's promise for more practical and efficient welfare assessments. Commercial animal welfare audits should prioritize easily observable indicators and herd records due to logistical constraints in measuring biomarkers or heart rate variability. This focus on easily accessible indicators, such as body condition score, lameness, claw health, cleanliness, and somatic cell count allows effective welfare assessments, enabling prompt action to enhance wellbeing.

Regional-Scale Analysis of Antimicrobial Usage in Smallholder Cattle Herds (Aosta Valley, Italy): Why Surveillance Matters

Optimising antimicrobial usage (AMU) in livestock is pivotal to counteract the emergence of antimicrobial resistance. We analysed AMU in more than 1000 cattle herds over 11 years (2008-2018) in the Aosta Valley (Italy), a region where 80% of farms house less than 50 cattle. Dairy cows accounted for over 95% of AMU. AMU was estimated using the defined daily dose animal for Italy (DDDAit) per biomass for the whole herd and a treatment incidence 100 (TI100) for cows. Average annual herd-level AMU was low, with 3.6 DDDAit/biomass (range: 3.2-4.0) and 1.2 TI100 in cows (range: 1.1-1.3). Third and fourth generation cephalosporins, which are critical for human medicine, represented almost 10% of usage, and intramammary antimicrobials accounted for over 60%. We detected significant downward temporal trends in total AMU, as well as a positive relationship with herd size. The magnitude of such effects was small, leaving scant room for further reduction. However, the frequent use of critical antimicrobials and intramammary products should be addressed, following the principles of prudent AMU. Our findings highlight the importance of monitoring AMU even in low-production, smallholding contexts where a low usage is expected, to identify any deficiencies and implement interventions for further AMU optimisation.

Animal Welfare and Farmers' Satisfaction in Small-Scale Dairy Farms in the Eastern Alps: A "One Welfare" Approach

The multidimensional concept of animal welfare includes physical health, good emotional state, and appropriate behavior of the animals. The most recent methods for its assessment are inspired by the Welfare Quality, a project compiling animal-, resource-, and management-based measures. Recently, animal welfare assessment has also considered the human factor in a so-called “One Welfare” approach. The One Welfare framework highlights the interconnections between animal welfare, human well-being, and the environment. The concept seems to fit particularly well to mountain areas where the relationship between human, animals, and the environment is stronger. In such disadvantaged areas, farmers' well-being plays a key role in maintaining livestock farming profitably and sustainably. This study aims to investigate the relationship between farmers' satisfaction, animal welfare outcomes, and overall farm performance in 69 small-scale dairy farms in the Eastern Alps. Animal welfare assessment consisted of animal-based measures and was performed using the methodology proposed by the European Food Safety Authority for this type of farm. Moreover, the farmers were interviewed to retrieve data on farm characteristics and on their level of satisfaction toward workload, land organization, relationship with the agricultural/non-agricultural community, and the future of local agriculture. The results show that good animal welfare can be obtained in a mountain farming system. Clinical indicators show a low prevalence of diseases and of very lean cows as opposed to integument alterations. The workload is not perceived as a problem in traditional farms (i.e., tie-stall and with no participation in quality-certification schemes). Animal welfare is higher in those farms where farmers have a positive engagement with both the agricultural and non-agricultural community and where farmers are satisfied with their land organization. A One Welfare approach could be applied on a larger scale to fully understand the links between animal and human well-being in mountain areas.

Welfare assessment in intensive and semi-intensive dairy cattle management system in Sicily

The present study aimed to compare the welfare of dairy cows kept in two traditional husbandry systems (semi-intensive and intensive farming) in south-eastern Sicily. A total of 18 dairy farms (nine semi-intensive and nine intensive) were evaluated with a multicriteria system adapted for Sicilian conditions and obtained simplifying the model of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Values of welfare measures, collected by inspections of the farms (general well-being indicators, ventilation system, resting areas [cubicles or bedding], flooring, milking parlours and waiting area, manger and watering equipment), and those of health categories (cases of abortions, hypocalcemia, displacement of abomasum, acidosis/ketosis, enteritis, hoof problems, and mastitis) obtained through the farm records, were compared using Mann-Whitney and Chi-squared tests, respectively. Data showed significant differences (p ≤ .05) about the variables related to welfare categories such as housing ventilation system, resting area, manger, and water equipment that were better in the semi-intensive system than the intensive system. No significant differences were observed about the variables related to health indicators. The results demonstrated that in Sicily the semi-intensive farm is better than the intensive to satisfy the conditions of animal welfare.

Animal Welfare and Mountain Products from Traditional Dairy Farms: How Do Consumers Perceive Complexity?

Simple Summary

European consumers recognize the added value of mountain dairy production and relate it to a composite of positive attributes. However, while consumers’ understanding of conventional dairy production and animal welfare has already been investigated, how consumers perceive animal welfare in traditional mountain dairy farming remains unexplored. This qualitative study aims at shedding light on consumers’ perceptions regarding animal welfare in mountain dairy cheese production systems. Focus group interviews were carried out with three major consumer groups that purchase mountain cheese including rural consumers living in mountain villages, urban consumers living in the plains, and urban consumers living in mountain cities. The results of this study show that all participants expect mountain farming to be on a smaller scale and mountain products to be healthier when compared to non-mountain farming systems. However, the verbal appreciation of certain husbandry and management choices especially in the case of urban consumers did not result in their recognition when pictures of traditional husbandry systems were provided, which displays a disconnection between the expectations towards mountain production systems and reality. These findings will support the development of a transparent science-based dialogue among mountain dairy chain actors on animal welfare and sustainable farming practices in mountain areas.

Abstract

This qualitative study aims to investigate consumers’ perceptions toward dairy cow welfare in traditional mountain farms. While consumers’ understanding of conventional dairy production and animal welfare has already been investigated, how consumers perceive animal welfare in traditional mountain dairy farming remains still unexplored. Focus group interviews were conducted with consumers having different degrees of geographical proximity to mountains and with an explicit interest in local dairy products. The results of this qualitative study show that participants expect mountain farming to be on a smaller scale when compared to non-mountain farming systems and expect mountain products to be healthier. Similarly, all participants consider origin, locality, and small-scale production as relevant quality attributes of mountain cheese. However, the appreciation of these abstract features did not necessarily result in their recognition when sample pictures of traditional husbandry systems were provided especially in the case of urban participants. This study contributes to reveal the gap between urban consumers’ conception of mountain farming and the actual farming practices. It also indicates the need to promote an effective science-based dialogue on animal welfare that goes beyond an anthropomorphic perspective and tackles the complexity of farming systems in relation to the context in which they are located.

Non-Compliance and Follow-Up in Swedish Official and Private Animal Welfare Control of Dairy Cows

Farmers often have to comply with several sets of animal welfare regulations, since private standards have been developed in addition to legislation. Using an epidemiological approach, we analysed protocols from animal welfare inspections carried out in Swedish dairy herds by the County Administrative Board (CAB; official control of legislation) and by the dairy company Arla Foods (private control of Arlagården standard) during 2010⁻2013 in the county of Västra Götaland. CAB and Arla inspections were not carried out simultaneously. We aimed to identify common non-compliances, quantify risk factors of non-compliance, and investigate if non-compliances were based on animal-, resource-, or management-based requirements, as well as determining the time period allowed for achieving compliance. Non-compliance was found in 58% of CAB cases, and 51% of Arla cases (each case comprising a sequence of one or several inspections). Dirty dairy cattle was one of the most frequent non-compliances in both control systems. However, the differences in control results were large, suggesting a difference in focus between the two systems. Tie-stall housing and winter season (Dec⁻Feb) were common risk factors for non-compliance, and overall organic farms had a lower predicted number of non-compliances compared to conventional farms. The presence of both similarities and differences between the systems underlines the need for transparency, predictability, and clarity of inspections.

Greenhouse gas balance of mountain dairy farms as affected by grassland carbon sequestration

Recent studies on milk production have often focused on environmental impacts analysed using the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) approach. In grassland-based livestock systems, soil carbon sequestration might be a potential sink to mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) balance. Nevertheless, there is no commonly shared methodology. In this work, the GHG emissions of small-scale mountain dairy farms were assessed using the LCA approach. Two functional units, kg of Fat and Protein Corrected Milk (FPCM) and Utilizable Agricultural Land (UAL), and two different emissions allocations methods, no allocation and physical allocation, which accounts for the co-product beef, were considered. Two groups of small-scale dairy farms were identified based on the Livestock Units (LU) reared: <30 LU (LLU) and >30 LU (HLU). Before considering soil carbon sequestration in LCA, performing no allocation methods, LLU farms tended to have higher GHG emission than HLU farms per kg of FPCM (1.94 vs. 1.59 kg CO₂-eq/kg FPCM, P ≤ 0.10), whereas the situation was reversed upon considering the m² of UAL as a functional unit (0.29 vs. 0.89 kg CO₂-eq/m², P ≤ 0.05). Conversely, considering physical allocation, the difference between the two groups became less noticeable. When the contribution from soil carbon sequestration was included in the LCA and no allocation method was performed, LLU farms registered higher values of GHG emission per kg of FPCM than HLU farms (1.38 vs. 1.10 kg CO₂-eq/kg FPCM, P ≤ 0.05), and the situation was likewise reversed in this case upon considering the m² of UAL as a functional unit (0.22 vs. 0.73 kg CO₂-eq/m², P ≤ 0.05). To highlight how the presence of grasslands is crucial for the carbon footprint of small-scale farms, this study also applied a simulation for increasing the forage self-sufficiency of farms to 100%. In this case, an average reduction of GHG emission per kg of FPCM of farms was estimated both with no allocation and with physical allocation, reaching 27.0% and 28.8%, respectively.

INVITED REVIEW: Farm size and animal welfare

Critics of agricultural intensification have argued that the transition from smaller to larger farms has compromised animal welfare. To critically examine evidence relevant to this claim, we reviewed more than 150 publications that examined the relationship between farm size and at least one animal welfare indicator. Although much of this literature focuses on dairy cattle, we also reference other farmed species where appropriate. We found little evidence of any simple relationship, negative or positive, between farm size and animal welfare. Instead, the evidence suggests that larger farms provide some opportunities to improve animal welfare but may also create welfare risks. For example, larger farms permit more specialized and professional management of animal health but can make it more difficult to accommodate outdoor access that some view as integral to animal welfare. Future research should attempt to specify the underlying casual mechanisms by which statistical associations between farm size and indicators of welfare are believed to occur. We also suggest that policy and advocacy efforts aimed at reversing increases in farm size would be better directed toward improving welfare on farms of all sizes.